Menu

The ‘Buddhist Flag’? Blasphemy and disrespect to Buddhism

The Buddhist flag (sometimes called the sāsana flag) was designed by J.R. de Silva and Colonel Henry S. Olcott to mark the revival of Buddhism in Ceylon (Sri Lanka) in 1880. One could say it is some ways an American invention. It was accepted as the International Buddhist Flag by the 1952 World Buddhist Congress. It is part of what scholars would term ‘Protestant Buddhism’ a complex movement that is both a ‘protest’ against (colonial) Christianity and a movement which adopts many features of Protestantism. The flag itself is an uncomfortable creation, if I can use these terms, involving many historical, political and religious ideas.

Often superimposed on the flag are the Burmese numbers ’969′ as part of Burmese nationalist ideas of nation and religion.

The act of taking down the flag was clearly seen as being disrespectful to the Buddhist religion. Rumours were quickly spread that foreign aid workers were using the flag as skirts or treated in other disrespectful ways. All these stories seem to be unfounded and members of Malteser International have spoken of the need, as humanitarian organisations not to display any religious or political symbols, and of the respect they have shown to the flag. It was taken down originally to avoid inciting sectarian tensions.

It seems clear that Buddhist nationalists have taken insult with any misuse of the Buddhist flag – the very touching of it now perceived as an insult. However, few know the history of the flag, its origins in Sri Lanka, and its ‘invention’ by Olcott.

One could ask what place blasphemy has in Buddhist thought, as the Burmese nationalists were clearly expressing sentiments close to the idea that by mistreating the Buddhist flag some notion of blasphemy was being committed against Buddhism.

The text usually quoted in this respect are the opening passages of the Brahmajāla-sutta. This text gives the classical Buddhist response to these ideas. I think the issues are far more complex than is often acknowledged. There may be a very real tension between the rational advice for a Buddhist to not show attachment to perceived offences, and the idea that disrespect towards Buddhist symbols are a very real threat to national and ethnic identity.

The passage worth quoted is the following:

‘If, bhikkhus, others speak in dispraise of me [the Buddha], or in dispraise of the Dhamma, or in dispraise of the Sangha, you should not give way to resentment, displeasure, or animosity against them in your heart. For if you were to become angry or upset in such a situation, you would only be creating an obstacle for yourselves[…]’

‘And if, bhikkhus, others speak in praise of me [the Buddha], or in praise of the Dhamma, or in praise of the Sangha, you should not give way to jubilation, joy, and exultation in your heart. For if you were to become jubilant, joyful, and exultant in such a situation, you would only be creating an obstacle for yourselves (Brahmajāla-sutta (D I, 1).

Some would say that these passages could be used to display the superiority of Buddhism over other religions – Buddhist should not take offence. Often, however, they need to be quoted back to those who perceive offences against Buddhism – the very one’s supposedly protecting these important ideas.

‘Should anyone speak disparagingly of me, the Dhamma or the Saṅgha you should not get angry, resentful or upset because of that. For if you did you would not be able recognize if what they said was true or not. Therefore, if others speak disparagingly of me, the Dhamma or the Saṅgha you should explain whatever is incorrect saying: “This is not correct, that is not true, we do not do this, that is not our way.”’ (D.I,1-3). Having said this he then added an interesting point: ‘Should anyone speak in praise of me, the Dhamma or the Saṅgha you should not get proud, puffed up or exultant because of that. For if you did that would become a hindrance to you. Therefore, if others speak in praise of me, the Dhamma or the Saṅgha you should simply acknowledge what is true as true saying: “This is correct, that is true, we do this, that is our way.”’ – See more at: http://www.buddhisma2z.com/content.php?id=40#sthash.kshiN2aY.dpuf

‘Should anyone speak disparagingly of me, the Dhamma or the Saṅgha you should not get angry, resentful or upset because of that. For if you did you would not be able recognize if what they said was true or not. Therefore, if others speak disparagingly of me, the Dhamma or the Saṅgha you should explain whatever is incorrect saying: “This is not correct, that is not true, we do not do this, that is not our way.”’ (D.I,1-3). Having said this he then added an interesting point: ‘Should anyone speak in praise of me, the Dhamma or the Saṅgha you should not get proud, puffed up or exultant because of that. For if you did that would become a hindrance to you. Therefore, if others speak in praise of me, the Dhamma or the Saṅgha you should simply acknowledge what is true as true saying: “This is correct, that is true, we do this, that is our way.”’ – See more at: http://www.buddhisma2z.com/content.php?id=40#sthash.kshiN2aY.dpuf

‘Should anyone speak disparagingly of me, the Dhamma or the Saṅgha you should not get angry, resentful or upset because of that. For if you did you would not be able recognize if what they said was true or not. Therefore, if others speak disparagingly of me, the Dhamma or the Saṅgha you should explain whatever is incorrect saying: “This is not correct, that is not true, we do not do this, that is not our way.”’ (D.I,1-3). Having said this he then added an interesting point: ‘Should anyone speak in praise of me, the Dhamma or the Saṅgha you should not get proud, puffed up or exultant because of that. For if you did that would become a hindrance to you. Therefore, if others speak in praise of me, the Dhamma or the Saṅgha you should simply acknowledge what is true as true saying: “This is correct, that is true, we do this, that is our way.”’ – See more at: http://www.buddhisma2z.com/content.php?id=40#sthash.kshiN2aY.dpuf

Unfortunately it’s not about a fundamentalist Buddhism in which scripture counts as authoritative. The people complaining have probably never studied Buddhist literature. They rely on monks to tell them what’s what, and the monks come from the same population and probably also don’t study scripture. So it boils down to tribalism and nationalism with Buddhist trimmings at best.

Good points, but there are some very senior and literate monks preaching to them – and even if they are not aware of the texts, it does not make them non-Buddhist in some way – in fact such a notion is very problematic. I don’t think you need to read Pali or Sanskrit to be a Buddhist. Thanks for your comments though.